OceanVortex:glass_ibis: So it would be sequestered out of the biosphere for what, 18 hours?

Any sciency people here who can speak to this?

It's an interesting point but I'm not sure if the conversion to alcohol then conversion to urine/waste makes the carbon into some inert form that limits its impact on global warming?

I can't speak with any great authority on this, but unless you're farting CO2 I can't think of how it would return as a gas to the atmosphere.

One irony in all of this is that the traditional fermentation process for creating alcohol releases a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if this process replaces some of that it seems like it would help.

So biofuels are recycling existing atmospheric CO2 while fossil fuels are adding MORE, which we kind of don't want.

With biofuels like diesel from algae, there is always some of the feedstock that doesn't get converted to fuel, and is left as some sort of mulch or sludge, so a portion of the carbon is still sequestered.

give me doughnuts:With biofuels like diesel from algae, there is always some of the feedstock that doesn't get converted to fuel, and is left as some sort of mulch or sludge, so a portion of the carbon is still sequestered.

That just takes longer to break down - like the plant matter in my compost heap. Carbon sequestration either has to be elemental (like graphite) or a stable compound (like petroleum). Maybe the development of fast growing carbon nanotubes could be a solution (and a really useful product!)?

no_dice:theorellior: 0.2% efficiency? I'm sorry, plants have that beat hands down. And they make far more delicious substances than formic acid.

Effing reading, how does it work?

"Panasonic claimed that at efficiency levels of 0.2 per cent - that is, the energy proportion of synthesised materials to input light - the system is on a par with real plants"

wiki wiki wiki wikipedia.

In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation

madgonad:Carbon sequestration either has to be elemental (like graphite) or a stable compound (like petroleum). Maybe the development of fast growing carbon nanotubes could be a solution (and a really useful product!)?

There are some experiments in using biochar (basically, charcoal) to both sequester carbon and to stabilize and enhance soils.

Mitch Taylor's Bro:Perhaps, but I always thought their purpose was to reduce dependency on petroleum for fuel. And fund the corn industry.

That's what happens when politics sticks its nose in science. When money and power is involved, everything is distorted.

The simple reality is that if we want the planet to remain as close to the way that we found it, we need to control our impact on it. That means recycling limited resources, not overdrawing from groundwater supplies, not taking more fish than can be recovered, and not disturbing the natural balance in the atmosphere.

Uncorking a ton of fossil fuels will cause some climate change and acidify the oceans for a while. In a couple thousand years it will all be back in balance again. The side effects of this are changing local climates, slight change in sea levels, and pressure on the life cycles of ocean plants and animals. It isn't the end of the world. We aren't going to turn into Venus. On the plus side, Canada will become a lot nicer place to live. Wheat production in Kansas will decline and grazing will replace it. Nebraska will grow more wheat to balance things out. Coral reefs will noticeably shrink - which I think sucks - but the fish will recover. Good news for sea turtles - more jellyfish for them to eat! Central Canada will produce less canola oil and might start turning to corn. In 100 years North Carolina will probably lose their outer banks - which is bad news for the coast when the next hurricane arrives. Lots of little things. Oh, and crop yields will be down overall, so expect starvation in unexpected places in the world. Maybe even here, because China can spend some of their dollars on food grown here.

theorellior:madgonad: Carbon sequestration either has to be elemental (like graphite) or a stable compound (like petroleum). Maybe the development of fast growing carbon nanotubes could be a solution (and a really useful product!)?

There are some experiments in using biochar (basically, charcoal) to both sequester carbon and to stabilize and enhance soils.

I like that, but how stable will charcoal be in most soils? It breaks down and gets sucked-up by plants in a huge hurry.